Thread by @benbackupbackup

It’s about time I debunked this. This meme is extremely wrong on almost every point. I am going to address the actual points and then address whether or not China is socialist 🧵

"All land and natural resources in China are owned by the Communist Party of China (with the exception of some farmland; which is owned collectively). Land in China can only be leased, not owned."
This is technically accurate. Under China's Constitution (Article 10) and Property Law, urban land is state-owned, while rural/suburban land is typically owned by collectives.
However, ownership on paper does not mean everything. In Nazi Germany, factories were “private” on paper, while the government controlled all aspects of production. This was something called “de facto socialism”. China has the opposite in many areas. Land is “owned” by the state on paper, but private owners are able to make many free decisions for their own profit. We will get back to this.

"68% of China’s GDP in 2023 was generated by State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). SOEs own 60% of China’s total assets as of 2021."
One source tied to this data notes SOE operating income at ¥85.73 trillion (~68% of GDP), but this confuses revenue (gross sales, which can include intermediates and overlaps) with value-added GDP contribution. Private firms contribute 60% of China’s GDP, and are responsible for 70% of innovation, 80% of urban employment and provide 90% of new jobs. Private wealth is also responsible for 70% of investment and 90% of exports.

en.moj.gov.cn/2025-05/08/c_1…

"95.5% of Chinese citizens support the central government according to an independent study by Harvard."

This stat was recently debunked with a survey that allowed Chinese citizens to express their displeasure with the CCP anonymously. Turns out, people under dictatorships are scared of speaking out against the dictatorships. Who knew?

When Chinese citizens were polled anonymously, the approval rating plummeted.

phys.org/news/2024-01-c…

"Central planning dictates China’s economy in the form of five-year plans."
China does use five-year plans. These set industrial policy, investment signals, and goals rather than Soviet-style detailed output quotas for every factory. The government still does not dictate the actions of every factory and still allows for a relative amount of economic freedom in many areas.

"China executes more corrupt billionaires than any nation on the planet. In China, billionaires do not constitute a ruling class. They are subordinated to the Communist Party."
Not a very high bar since 1. China had the most billionaires and 2. Most countries don’t execute people for white collar crime. There is no evidence that China prosecuted billionaires at a higher than average rate.

66%+ of companies listed on Chinese stock exchanges are state-owned. By law, companies that make up the core of the Chinese economy must be owned by the state."
State entities hold a large share of market capitalization on Shanghai/Shenzhen exchanges (often 40–60%+ in certain periods or for top firms), especially in strategic sectors. However, the majority of listed companies by number are private or mixed-ownership; state-holding firms were around 27% in some recent counts.

Stock markets themselves are a capitalist institution: companies raise capital from investors expecting returns, shares trade on profit expectations, and volatility occurs. SOEs listed often pursue profits alongside policy goals.

New a few notes on the transition and China’s modern economy. The marketization index from China’s National Economic Research Institute teaches us a lot. As you can see, it increased a lot post-reforms. In 1978, the score was 0. What this shows, according to the authors, is things like “Size of the government in the regional economy… Inter-regional trade barriers, including the price control… allocation of resources, including capital and labor.” Etc. in other words, a higher score means “Freer price setting and less trade barriers… smaller [government] size in the provinces… Competition in banking sector…” etc…

So marketization DOES mean more capitalism. The higher the score, the less CCP/government influence is over the economy.

Mises said we need market prices on factor goods, not state prices or centrally planned allocation. As you can see, the latter two dropped dramatically with marketization. This brought China closer to Mises’ free market vision.

Are all factor goods allocated by the market? No. But we see in China’s development: the more factor goods were allocated by the market, the more the quality of life improved.

Not only do we see this on a national level, but also on a provincial and even city level. The less control the Chinese government has over a province’s economy, the faster it grows, the more it innovates, the less poverty it has, etc.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

So what have we learned? Under absolute central planning under Mao, China was incredibly poor and an absolute failure. As government control was slowly removed and capitalism seeped back in, life got better. Now, the more capitalist a Chinese province is, the better off it is. The less CCP influence a province has, the better off it is. This is a HUGE indictment against socialism/central planning and the leadership of the CCP.

Learn more here:

praxben.substack.com/p/china-ruined…

hoover.org/research/how-c…